Individualism Is Misunderstood

Choice is the defining characteristic of individualism: the ability of every human being to determine their own destiny...

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

Individualism is often mistakenly, yet understandably, associated with selfishness and the pursuit of one’s own interests to the detriment of others.

However, as a philosophical concept, individualism refers to the moral stance that emphasises the importance of individual autonomy and self-reliance. This idea is rooted in philosophical traditions such as those of John Stuart Mill and Ayn Rand, who argued for the value of individual rights and freedom of choice.

Thus, although someone who acts in self-interest can be described as an individualist, equally, a person who is selfless and considerate of the interests of others can also be regarded as an individualist.

Choice is the defining characteristic of individualism: the ability of every human being to determine their own destiny, provided that this pursuit does not infringe upon another’s right to do the same. Individualism centres on the capacity of the individual to make decisions that shape their destiny, whatever form it may take.

The primary rationale for enabling choice for everyone is the simple fact that the Earth is inhabited by human beings. This seemingly innocuous truth is why every individual must be granted the ability to determine their own destiny, for a society to be truly just.

The contrast in this just society is one in which certain individuals make decisions on behalf of others for various reasons. This would constitute an injustice, as those making decisions on behalf of others are also human, like those they represent, yet they would be subject to a different set of rules regarding decision-making.

Equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of justice, evident in legal texts as ancient as the Papyrus of the Eloquent Peasant. Consequently, individualism is concerned with ensuring that everyone in society is afforded the freedom to make their own decisions, as all are equal before the law.

The decisions permitted by individualism are not necessarily those endorsed by it. As previously outlined, some individuals choose to be selfish, while others choose to be selfless. Both types of people can only truly be considered good or bad when they make a conscious choice to be so.

It is therefore mistaken to associate individualism solely with decisions perceived by society as negative, while ignoring those that are positive and made freely or voluntarily. Individualism enables a society in which its inhabitants can choose the kind of citizens they wish to be, for better or for worse.

Another mistaken way of thinking among certain sectors of society is the association of individualism with isolation or solitary pursuits that are somehow, magically divorced from the rest of society. Society, a web of interdependent individuals, is a network of various individuals in the broadest sense.

Given that choice is the fundamental basis of individualism, it is a mistake to consider only solitary pursuits as individualistic, while disregarding voluntary collective ones. When two or more individuals choose to associate and form a group for any reason, that too is an expression of individualism.

Collectives are not the antithesis of individualism. Coerced collectives, in which one is compelled to join without voluntary consent and where decisions are made on their behalf by others – decisions that do not infringe upon anyone’s rights – are the true opposite of individualism.

Voluntary groups of various kinds are an expression of individualism. Let us use religion as an example. Religions are, for the most part, freely chosen, and when they are not, it ought to be so and is considered an injustice.

For our example, let us reasonably assume that these choices are made freely, at least in South Africa. Religions are clearly collective institutions; they consist of individuals who hold various levels of authority within their organisations.

One might say it is the same as those groups mentioned above that make decisions on people’s behalf, which are antithetical to individualism. The key difference, however, is that these groups impose decisions by force, the opposite of choice. Individuals choose to be subject to church authority voluntarily, without any force or threat being used against them, and that is an expression of individualism.

A state (a collective institution) that does not permit individuals to make choices that are not harmful to others is the antithesis of individualism. By its nature, a state’s influence and authority extend to everyone within a given territory. This means that even if you choose to no longer be subject to that state, it becomes nearly impossible to do so, as demonstrated by the numerous failed secession movements around the world.

Therefore, for a state to become more just than unjust, it must allow its citizens to make as many decisions that define their lives as freely as possible. This is why an individualist would oppose any policies that restrict this ability, regardless of their form.

From social engineering taxes such as the sugar and sin taxes to state interventionism in employment contracts through labour legislation, and the regulatory hurdles involved in establishing a business, all of these reflect a mindset that should be considered unjust.

However, individualism does not entail the total rejection of all governmental intervention. For instance, legal protection from assault is a policy supported by individualists, as it upholds an individual’s right to personal safety and autonomy without infringing on the rights of others. This example illustrates that, while certain interventions may be rejected, supportive policies that protect fundamental rights are welcomed.

This way of thinking, and the policies it generates – which lead to a less free society – should be rejected in favour of individualism and the freedom of choice it allows. Will some unsavoury individuals seek to exploit others through employment contract terms or cause harm through their business operations? Yes, and where natural rights are violated, there should be recourse.

Importantly, there would also be many individuals who choose to be non-exploitative in their employment contracts and ethical in their business practices. It is widely agreed that society needs more selfless and non-exploitative individuals than any other kind.

This is why we should choose an individualistic society, where people sincerely and genuinely choose to be good, rather than having goodness enforced through the threat of force and the unintended consequences that this creates.

Zakhele Mthembu, BA Law LLB (Wits), is a Policy Officer at the Free Market Foundation.